Monthly Archives: September 2013

A close examination of the Declaration of Independence shows why our nation became great.

If rights are not given by God, where do they come from?

“It’s not stupid, it’s a fact. Rights don’t come from anywhere but the state,” an online commenter snarled.

Imagine a world where your right to life itself was handed to you by bureaucrats. Remember that government is notorious for setting incorrect precedents, following them to the letter for a century or more, and then quickly reversing the notion to such an extent that the new policy is likewise wrong.

One example of this is the 1856 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The highest court in the land ruled that African-Americans could not be citizens. This decision forced many men, women, and children to live the dream of modern leftists: the state gives rights. Clearly the situation was less than optimal. A slave who hoped to be a citizen could only continue hoping. The United States government did not even consider African-Americans fully human.

Although America has rectified the injustices of the Scott v. Sandford case, the fact remains that government is an unreliable source of paychecks, protection, and especially personal rights.

But more important than the observation that government is sometimes unwilling to give rights is the fact that if there is no God, there is no reason to believe in personal liberty or rights in the first place. An atheist who believes in rights may have whimsically decided that liberty sounded nicer than otherwise. Assuming that God – who gave us a conscience and a sense of justice – does not exist, who is to decide what is fair and what is not?

Without God, there can be no absolutes. Thus in such a situation, the word “justice” itself is meaningless. Deciding that tolerance is a virtue or that puppies are good would not only be arbitrary, but futile. Any points of reference would be gone and personal opinion would be the only guiding light.

Ultimately, freedom is good because freedom works. Freedom works because God ordained it to work. The same is true for all aspects of moral conscience. Theft is wrong for the same reason that freedom is good – because God said so.

Possibly the most famous excerpt of our Declaration of Independence asserts that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. A common error is to claim that your right to life, liberty, or a fair trial is your Constitutional right. Rather, rights are given to us by God and merely acknowledged and protected by the Constitution.

Long ago America wittingly forgot that God gives rights – and in doing so adopted the same mindset that led Hitler to commit his atrocities and the same creed that influenced Marx to formulate a system that brought forth the most bloody governments of all times. Clearly the United States capitol has not turned into the Kremlin, nor has Washington transformed into Pyongyang. Sadly, however, the American people have disowned the principles that made the nation possible. In so doing, they have removed a crucial thread from the fabric of our nation. The cloth itself may appear to be the same – but the moment you attempt to stretch it, it will rip in two.

The next time you are a passenger in an airplane, look below. The familiar scenery becomes smaller and smaller as you ascend. Soon you will have a commanding view of the landscape – and maybe you can even see the curvature of the earth. The extent of the civilization and the enormous amount of thought, investment, and work that went in to all you see below is staggering. Maybe you assume that it just took time – well, it did – but it took much more than that: without property rights, the millions of cars, thousands of buildings, and plenitude of homes could never exist.

The right to life and your right to liberty are only secure so long as property rights exist, as history has proven. Children understand property rights: toddlers are fond of shouting “Mine!” and tightly grasping the toy in question. Americans should be equally unabashed to protest theft of property – for as Barry Goldwater pointed out, the government that can give you everything you want can also take away everything that you have.

” The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence…” said John Adams.

Known as the Father of Classical Liberalism, the British philosopher and political theorist John Locke shaped the Founding Fathers’ opinions on property rights. He maintained that a person’s property – that which he worked for, and particularly, made – is not unlike an extension of a person’s life and energy. Taking away that property is akin to threatening life itself.

A lapse of property rights poses serious economic questions as well. Every act of government is an incentive. If government suggests that it will not protect property, the people will promptly halt their production of property. One reason for President Ronald Reagan’s success in reviving the economy was due to a new interest in the right of the people to keep what they earn: taxing the rich reduces the incentive to become rich, and taxing at high rates kills incentives to do anything, no matter what your financial status. President Reagan proudly did the opposite.

In Genesis 1:28, God commanded that we “subdue” and “have dominion” over the earth. As W. Cleon Skousen pointed out in his book “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” “… because dominion means control, and control requires exclusiveness, private rights in property became an inescapable necessity or an inherent aspect of subduing the earth and bringing it under dominion.”

Although many activists pretend that strong property rights are “greedy,” every indication proves the opposite: poverty would be perpetuated if there was nothing for the people to own. (In fact, poverty would have no meaning if you could own nothing.)

Life, liberty, and property, it is clear, are rights so interconnected that if one is taken away, the others are meaningless.

John Quincy Adams said, “Posterity – you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.”

It is imperative that in all your dealings with government, and in every vote you cast, that you remember to say “Mine!”

The left has always preferred big government to big business. Following the trend, President Obama claims that “one-percenters” are beneficiaries of undeserved fortune. The statement that almost invariably follows is that those experiencing misfortune (whether undeserved or otherwise) should likewise benefit from these allegedly excess funds.

From subsidies to price controls to trade protectionism, the federal government meddles in the affairs of commerce in the name of fairness, for the sake of the poor people, and because the lobbyists told them to.

For example, the minimum wage has long been hailed as the solution to overworked and underpaid workers. Government subsidies to agriculture and manufacturing have been in existence for over a century; and ever since the days of President Franklin Roosevelt, the federal government has played a major role in welfare programs.

As Milton Friedman noticed, interventionism and outright socialism always result in failure everywhere they are tried. Because they fail, advocates insist that more of the same must be needed. Typically these advocates get their way and more of the same is attempted.

The intuitive and obvious benefits of subsidies, minimum wage, price controls, bailouts, or welfare always palls in comparison to the opportunities given up to achieve them.

Because government is incapable of generating revenue or making a profit, it must drain from the private sector to accomodate its expenditures. Although perhaps trade protectionism preserves a company at home, it may cost American consumers millions of dollars every year to continue purchasing from some homemade monopoly. Subsidies have the same effect. It may appear to lower prices, but you are really paying for the same product twice. Bailouts fund failure and make you pay twice at the same time.

The most personal of all interventionist ills, welfare, is also the least obvious of government misdeeds. A fraction of the trillions we spend on entitlement programs does end up in a needy person’s hands. However, entitlement spending in 2012 was enough for every poor man, woman, and child to receive twenty-thousand, six hundred ten dollars, and it was enough for every poor family of three to receive over sixty-one thousand dollars. Although you can rest assured that these recipients should fare well, they never achieve such a level of prosperity on a tax-free government program (nor would it be fair to those who are working if they did). Rather, only two or three cents of every taxpayer dollar designated to entitlement programs actually goes to a poor person. The remaining ninety-five cents is sucked into a bureaucratic vacuum of inefficiency.

You see the benefits of a welfare state: some poor people are given money in their time of need. Occasionally it even provides the stepping stone or temporary assistance that it was originally meant for. But one should look for the unseen, as Frederic Bastiat, a French economist so aptly stated.

The opportunity cost of the welfare state is one of the largest burdens on the United States today. The billions of dollars that government has extracted to fund welfare programs could have been the money that would have allowed a company to hire more employees, or the money that would have allowed a family to buy a new car. The high taxes that fund entitlement programs may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, as far as a family’s finances go.

When the howler monkeys on the left decry wealth and demand that entitlement programs grow larger, remember that government has no money by itself. The revenue taken from the private sector for entitlement programs is used to grow a bureaucracy. With the same revenue, companies would have increased wages; hired new workers; lowered prices; or as the benefits carry to employees, they give to private charities – and any of these things would reduce the need for welfare or entitlements in the first place.

Immediately before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) became the law of the land, the President said, “Tonight’s vote is not a victory for any one party … it’s a victory for the American people … This is what change looks like.”

At that point, America had no idea what this change looked like. PPACA, renowned for its secrecy, is revealing more of itself all the time.

Although the detrimental effects of this legislation are in an early stage, it is already obvious to many how the nation’s health care will suffer. Senior citizens and workers near retirement age will be hit particularly hard.

“If you like the Internal Revenue Service’s friendly atmosphere and helpful attitude, you’ll love PPACA!” Congressman Steve Stockman said, “Under the President’s health care system, you will experience big government and its bureaucrats in an entire new way – on the operating room and in the emergency center. Imagine a line at the DMV – and now imagine yourself in a hospital gown.”

“It may essentially take an act of Congress just for you to get a tooth pulled. The enormity of this law makes it impossible to navigate and impossible for it to work.” Stockman continued.

“I am doing everything I can to fight this socialist nightmare that will practically eliminate health care access for millions of Americans.” Stockman said.

Climbing prices are only the beginning of a plague of problems. Fifteen unelected bureaucrats, constituting the Independent Payment Advisory Board, will be in charge of meeting a budget target in Medicare. Statutorily prohibited from directly rationing care, the board can work around it by reducing provider payments for certain medical procedures – therefore immediately limiting the choices of seniors who desperately need care. Forced to face skyrocketing health care and a deteriorating medical system, American citizens are now left staring at the ominous face of “change.” Doctors and health care providers with Medicare patients are not receiving payment, and health insurance premiums are rising even more quickly than expected. “Affordable care,” in reality, is doublespeak.

In the next ten years, the health care market in the United States will drastically change for America’s 365 million people – just as the President promised – but it will not bring hope, and definitely not improvement.

4 to 5 cups all-purpose flour, plus extra for flouring pan and work area

1 package active dry yeast

1 cup lukewarm milk (110 to 115 degrees)

3 large eggs

3 tablespoons sugar

1 teaspoon salt

4 ounces melted butter

Preparation

1.Butter and flour a 1-quart or larger ring mold or tube pan and set aside. Whisk the yeast with the milk in a large bowl. Whisk in 2 of the eggs and then the sugar, salt and 4 cups of the flour, switching to a spoon when the dough gets stiff. Stir in the softened butter and knead the dough in the bowl until it comes together in a ball. Turn out onto the work area and knead until it forms an elastic ball, sprinkling with and working in up to 1 cup more flour to keep dough from getting sticky. Place dough in a clean bowl and cover with plastic wrap. Let rise in a warm place until doubled in size, 1 to 1 1/2 hours.

2.Punch down dough and turn out onto a lightly floured work area. Roll dough into a log and cut into 28 equal-size pieces. Shape each piece into a ball, dip in melted butter and place in the prepared pan, staggering pieces in 2 layers. Cover loosely with plastic wrap and let rise in a warm place until doubled in bulk, about 30 minutes.

3.Preheat the oven to 375 degrees. Beat the remaining egg and lightly brush over the top of the bread. Bake until top is nicely browned and dough is cooked through, 25 to 30 minutes. (Test by turning out the loaf onto a rack; the bottom and sides should be nicely browned.) Turn upright on another rack to cool slightly before serving.

“Government is not the solution to our problem,” Ronald Reagan once commented[1], “government is the problem.”

Whether you speak of a weak economy, fewer jobs, a reduced work ethic, struggling businesses, or poorly educated children, any one of those catastrophes is almost guaranteed to find its origination or augmentation in government solutions. Advocates for big government maintain that the infinite cognitive capabilities and never-ceasing wisdom of federal employees is the answer to any type of trouble, even the problems of hungry homeless kittens or energy-inefficient toasters. Demagogues argue that such endeavors are government functions for which the private sector is inadequate. Past events, the current state of our nation, and common sense provide obvious grounds for denying these claims of government omniscience.

One such basic example of failure is the U.S. government’s dedication to combating poverty. Ironically backfiring to the extreme, currently our entitlements system and the enormous bureaucracy assigned to oversee it consumes $2.48 trillion dollars annually, [2] and is the chief source of government budget deficit. In 2010, over 70 percent[3] of federal spending went to 47 different[4] dependence programs. Of every dollar mandatorily given by taxpayers to fund these programs, $0.70 is used for administrative expenses, [5] never even reaching the “entitled” and “poverty-stricken” children, elderly people, and families for whom it is designated.

In contrast, average private charities have only 8-10 percent overhead costs. 5 Not only are private charities accountable to their donors, but there is typically a reciprocal obligation on part of the beneficiary; the focus is not on long-term support, [6] but on temporary emergency help. Rather than become dependent on contributions, recipients of private charity will typically find work for themselves quickly. Trillions of unnecessary dollars, thousands of regulations, and dozens of programs later, the U.S. government’s inconsequential army waging “war on poverty” has lost every battle in every area.

Another floundering area of American life, healthcare, is suffering because the government yet again promised that they could fly, crush steel with bare fists, and provide free healthcare for everyone with their awe-inspiring government superpowers. The pending onset of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) promises U.S. healthcare deterioration; already the government healthcare solutions Medicaid and Medicare have well proved their horrendous shortcomings. On average the programs pay only 56 percent of the market rate for medical procedures, [7] forcing many doctors to stop accepting those programs. It leaves recipients of the programs without sufficient care, doctors facing red ink, and taxpayers with a throbbing pain in the wallet. Obamacare only augments this problem by adding 18 million[8] more people to Medicaid. The government has gotten its blank check for socialized medicine, and it intends to use it – just as France, China, England, and Canada have. In socialized anything, profit is absent, work motives are lacking, and businesses and new technology are nonexistent. In contrast, private researchers in a free market have a profit and work motive. Without unnecessary government requirements, more doctors are willing to try new treatments and conduct more research, and all patients will receive better care. As exemplified by France, China, England, and Canada, [9] government cannot manage healthcare successfully.

Much talk circulated throughout the 2012 elections about creating jobs and stimulating the economy, and strangely, the context was often for the government to single-handedly rescue the helpless economy from its disastrous fate. However wonderful that scenario of complete protection may be, it remains impossible; yet Keynesian economics teaches that when government borrows money, and then somehow uses that money to increase the demand for jobs or certain products, [10] it will “jumpstart” the economy. This faulty reasoning was applied, unsuccessfully, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). [11] When the bill became law in February 2009, the United States had an unhealthy 12.5 million unemployed workers, at the stagnant unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. After over 75 percent of ARRA’s allotted funds were spent in October 2011, [12] 1.4 million more people than before were unemployed, reaching 9 percent unemployment. Obviously the best way for the government to meliorate businesses is to leave them alone; the government cannot prime the economic pump. An accomplishment that only a free market can well achieve, a thriving economy remains the distinguished trademark of a free people operating in a free market.

In his book “No, They Can’t”, John Stossel explains, “As long as Americans –and perhaps all human brains – leap to the intuitive yet false conclusion that governments solve problems, we’re in big trouble. That’s why we keep increasing government power: it seems like the obvious solution. Yet such ‘solutions’ inevitably generate more problems for government to ‘solve’.” [13]

Legislative solutions claiming to protect workers, enforce non-discrimination initiatives, stimulate the economy, or end poverty were created with sincere reassurances that success would result. However, such interference has never bode well for the private sector. When in any area the poisonous federal bureaucracy rears its ugly head, seeking whom it may devour, business owners and investors all flee to the regulation relief provided by diminished activity, hindered transactions, and reduced hiring. As demonstrated by America in the past, a free nation constitutes a formula for success that trumps the nonexistent benefit of despotic government solutions. If supporters of big government again chant their simplistic slogan, saying, “Yes we can,” it would surely befit the situation to explain, “No, they can’t.”

The next time government notices a problem and vows to do something in the form of another “solution”, remember: government “solutions” are not the answer.

WASHINGTON – The President today announced his $900,895,000,100.00 summer trip to the moon.

The trip is slated to cost between nine hundred billion dollars and one trillion dollars. The purpose of the trip is to educate moon rocks on the American way, to advocate the First Lady’s anti-obesity program, and to improve outer space foreign relations. The President hopes to encourage immigration from the moon as well.

Protests throughout the nation influenced the White House to cancel the Mars visit, approximated to cost around two trillion additional dollars.

“Why not? I mean, it’s tax money. It’s not like we can ever pay back the national debt anyway. Who cares? You do? Well, you don’t count,” Jay Carney said in response to a frustrating question from a Southeast Texan journalist, “By the way, your drawl is annoying me. Shut up, get a different accent, or be audited. Case closed and begone!”

The moon journey is a national first. NASA officials have expressed their disapproval, noting that the President has many times cut and slashed their agency’s funds while giving away phones, food stamps, and video games to political allies.

In an accidentally leaked video of a top secret NASA briefing, a high-ranking official said, “The President is going to be out of this world. Do any of you have ideas on how to keep him there?” The official has now been fired and is currently in the bowels of an underground IRS torture chamber somewhere in Cincinnati.

Speaker of the House John Boehner will be President for the time that Biden and Obama are absent for their two-month long trip to the moon. He declined to comment.

The entirety of the U.S. Armed Forces will be accompanying the President in space. He said “it’s a dangerous place and I wouldn’t want to be without a few million helpers.” Also, chefs, chauffeurs, barbers, makeup artists, mechanics, translators, Klingon experts, Star Trek historians, and scientists will come along. All will be paid at the preferred $50.00 minimum wage.

The President will be leaving in twenty-two days. A national shortage of supplies is to be expected.

NASA reported that a few Senators will come along as well, making a more climate-friendly rocket propulsion system possible. The forty-eight rockets and shuttles that will be used to reach the destination will be powered by hot air.

After the trip, the President intends to speak at the Communist Party USA Convention, a week-long event expected to attract around 700,000 people from all over New York.

If you would ever like to run for president, it seems that you already have a great start if you’re a veteran. Many past presidents demonstrated their patriotism by military service before they decided to help their country from the White House.

From George Washington to George W. Bush, all but thirteen Commander-in-Chiefs have served in the military. Most presidents served in either the U.S. Army or a state militia.

President Abraham Lincoln had the lowest rank in the military of any president; and President George Washington had the highest, with President Dwight Eisenhower as the second highest-ranking president.

Interestingly enough, no member of the Marine Corps or Coast Guard has ever been elected president.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s sweeping fork control legislation was passed yesterday in both chambers and was then hurriedly signed into law very early this morning.

“The reign of terror, uh, has ended. Uh, a new world is on the horizon, um, and a new day dawns for America. In fact, it is just about dawn right now. I’m going back to bed.” the President said in a brief statement at the signing ceremony.

He added, “You will notice, um, that my dress is um, a little, um, unusual. I am wearing my pajamas, um, and um, well, it goes to show that I think this will so drastically alter our national outlook and reputation, uh, and our sense of national pride, that it is worth doing. No matter how I look, no matter what I’m wearing, no matter what time of day.”

At 10:00 AM the president returned. This time he was not wearing curlers. He answered a few key questions about the legislation, and “debunked” the conservative claims of foul play and unconstitutionality

“This legislation, um, uh… is perfectly Constitutional. Can anybody tell me, uh, anywhere in the Constitution of the United, uh, States, does it uh, mention a right to keep and bear forks?” the President said to White House press, amidst numerous cries that MSNBC reported as being “we wenth wahmendment.” The unorganized chant was apparently a “wing nut rallying cry,” Chris Hayes reported.

“I can’t understand what your saying. But if, uh, it’s what it, uh, sounds like, uh, we don’t, uh, even have that many amendments, uh, in our, uh, Constitution.” the President said. His embarrassing misinterpretation of the chant resulted in “chaos,” Rachel Maddow said.

All who had participated in the unruly cry were promptly escorted elsewhere and then audited by the IRS.

Rejoicing Asian immigrants lined the streets and flooded the Capitol.

Noi Rel Perr-sin, a second-generation Korean, stated, “This be too good for nation. Now we just like motherland. No freedoms, Dear Leader in just position. Now all that left is to make him Dear Leader for life.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) responded to the rally and spoke to the enthralled crowd of over twenty thousand.

“Forward!” She yelled. The crowd yelled back excitedly, “Over the hill! Over the hill!”

After several such episodes, she began her amplified speech:

“This is a defining day for food rights. It will forever be remembered, it will forever be in our history books! No longer will diners across the nation be forced to use forks. This is the diner’s right to choose!” Feinstein passionately spoke, “Choice is good for a nation. The nation now has the choice to use chopsticks! Down with forks, oppressive and regressive! Choice, choice, choice!”
Meanwhile, conservative groups have all been audited.

“Thank goodness they have finally been stifled in time for us to fundamentally change America!” the IRS director said in a tweet early this morning.

The Republican Party has taken no sides. They hope to win over the Asian vote by refusing to actively oppose the bill. The party sent out an official statement this morning, consisting of seventeen verbose and utterly meaningless paragraphs promoting unity and diversity, which at the end they noted were complete opposites.

Fork control aims to take weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of irresponsible eaters. Borne through Congress on wings of a lame duck, the bill completely bans forks, including the plastic, glass, wood, ivory, or cloth variety. For those wishing to use a fork, the only options are to either move to Texas, which seceded this morning; become a federal law enforcement officer; join the military; or become a licensed, registered, and closely monitored fork owner with over 500 mandatory hours of federally approved training.

“It is so simple. Take the forks away, take all of the violent fork propaganda away. Take these murder-inspiring weapons of war away from our dinner tables, and the number of fork-related deaths will go down,” Senator Charles Schumer explained, “There are over seven billion fork-related deaths every year. Don’t believe the flapdoodle about their never having been that many people. Obviously because they’ve all been killed!”

With hopes of reducing obesity-related deaths, the legislation is set to take effect in a week. Currently there are extensive fork buy-back programs as well as programs to educate the populace on new fork laws.

“In the history of our nation, and in the history of all Western Civilization, there has never been a war waged without the help of a fork. 99% of murderers and incarcerated men and women have used a fork before. That proves my point.” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee said.

As for forks of the masses, they are now illegal. Assault forks in your home could now land you in prison – for life. Sporks, two-tined forks, and assault toothpicks and ice picks are also banned.

“Dude, I don’t care. Whatever. We still have spoons, we still have napkins.” Vice-President Joe Biden said regarding the legislation.

What does the nation think about it all?

The President said, “Uh, well, between one and three hundred sixty-five million United States Citizens approve and support this crucial fork legislation.”

WASHINGTON – President Obama declared, by way of executive order, the entire nation a “nuclear weapons-free zone” this morning.

It is undoubtedly a first in diplomatic relations and foreign policy.

“America, this is a new day for you…Today is the day that the rise of the oceans will begin to slow, that the planet will begin to heal. I always said yes, we can. Now it is done. I’m…proud to say that our nation will no longer cower and shake in the shadow of Russia, or Iran, or Korea. A generation from now, grandparents and great-grandparents will have to explain what it was like before I affixed my name to this paper, before ‘we the people’ rose up and did something that I know has ended this half-century-old arms race. It was an uphill battle to get my signature on that paper…but the protection we now have was worth the effort, it is worth more than anything on which I can put a price – for people on this continent, even for people in Russia or Korea.” the President declared Saturday afternoon.

Included in the plan are provisions to rid the U.S. of its nuclear weapons within the month. For years, Commanders-in-Chief have sought to reduce nuclear armament of enemies, prevent rogue nations from acquiring them at all, and to shrink the U.S. stockpile of warheads and weapons. The nuclear issue was at the top of the list for years. A prime topic in elections, “nuke” problems amassed millions of hours of coverage on television, radio, in movies, and even in books. Dystopian novels of all descriptions envisioned how the world would be after a nuclear war.

The president and many of his colleagues have agreed that “the era of nuclear-based dystopian literature is over.”

Rachel Maddow, famed media giant, exclaimed, “This…is at such a level that nobody else in power has ever had the amount of brains and sheer intellect to enact it. Nobody else has ever had the amount of brains it takes to enact this legislation. His vision is like nothing I’ve ever seen before, nothing that I could have even thought of. But somehow, it all makes sense.”

Many members of the Senate and House agree. In fact, Senators Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, and Dick Durbin were “ecstatic,” their spokesmen reported.

“His plan is so remarkably simple! It is the best thing that our nation has ever done concerning nuclear weapons, whether foreign or our own,” Feinstein tearfully explained, “It is a milestone for our nation similar to, but much larger than, the step that rid our schools of firearms forever… It goes with everything I believe in. It is the path that will finally fundamentally transform our nation. We will have peace forevermore! I hope…”

A number of House Democrats are riled that the White House did this without their approval or knowledge. However, they say that the executive order in itself is a brilliant idea that should have come to the table years ago.

Republicans generally agree that the most important issue now at hand is winning over the Latino vote for the 2014 elections, and all of the GOP leaders declined to make a statement until polls from minority groups were conducted.

The new law, in a nutshell, has formally made it illegal for other countries to bring nuclear weapons into the country or blow us up. Doing so could mean life in prison, and for sure a misdemeanor. A felony is in order if you completely destroy over one-half of the country.

“Punishments should be harsh. Nobody will try anything, not even once, if they see what will happen to them,” a legislative analyst at a well-known Washington think tank said.

“Nuclear-free zone” signs will be posted at imaginary border checkpoints throughout the country and in other notable places, to remind people foreign and otherwise that nuclear weapons are strictly prohibited.

Local police officers and other regional authorities as well as federal agents are responsible for making sure that the general population has no hidden nuclear warheads or rockets.

Finally, the president has made some remarks that indicate he will soon be looking into creating a “germ-free zone.”